United States v. State of Arizona, et al.
The Battle over Federal Supremacy and State Rights
A seminar with William Adair Bonner, Esq.
September 22, 2010
Does a state law addressing the presence of a person who already illegally entered the United States sufficiently interfere with federal immigration laws so as to be entirely preempted under the U. S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause (art VI, cl. 2)? Is illegal entry into the United States true "immigration", or simply a crime? Should a President of a foreign nation such as Mexico's President Calderon be invited to address a joint session of Congress to help us resolve our legislative issues? Should amicus briefs filed by South American countries be considered by the federal courts to aid them in resolving whether a state law violated the Constitution? May a state enact legislation making it illegal for a person to apply for or perform work, who is not "legally present" in the United States? Does Arizona's law truly "restrict interstate commerce" in violation of the Commerce Clause (art 1, sec. 8)? Does Arizona possess no "legitimate state interest" in the intentionally neglected enforcement of federal law?
As declared by U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton in her first opinion addressing the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Department of Justice, the Arizona litigation arises "Against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes and serious public safety concerns..."
The City of Hazelton's declaration on September 13 after an adverse ruling from the Third Circuit that it will carry its fight to the Supreme Court brings similar questions from the West close to home.